At t i t u d e s of CoreFre nc hTeachers inNe wfo und landand La b ra d,.rto th e 're ac he r Evalua tion Pr o c es s: Imp l icat i on s for Chan g e
by Maxwell Jose p h symond s
Athe sis su bmittedtothe Sc hoo l ofGra d u a teSt u di e s in part ialful filment of the re q ui r e me ntsfor th e deg r e e of
Mas t e r of Ed uca t i o n
Departm en t of C\lr ricu l umand Instru ction Memor ialUni versity ofNewfoundland
Se pt.emb e r, 1993
St . Joh n' s Newfoundland
1+1
Nalooalct canaoaLiblary Acquisilionsand Bibliograph icServicesBranch~\~~?'~O~r~1
B~bliolhcquo0.11'00.11"
duCarJada Drecton ccs ncqosuooact ccs scrvcos boionrapnqucs
The author has granted an irrevocable non-exclus ivelicence allow i ng theNationalLibrary of Canad a to reprodu ce, loan, distribute or sell copies of his/herthesisby anymean sand in any form or format,making thisthesis ava ilableto interested person s.
Theauthor retainsownershipof the copyright inhis/herthesis.
Neitherthe thesi snorsubs tanti al extracts fromitmay beprint edor otherwise reproduced without his/herpermiss ion.
l'auteur a acc crde unelicence irr evocable et non exclus ive permett anl it la Blbliothequ e nationale du Canada de reproduire,prefer,distribu erou vendre descopiesde sathese de quelque menier e et sous quelqueforme que cesoitpou r mettr edesexemplalresde cette these it la dispo sition des personn esjnh~ressees.
L'auteurconservelaproprlete du droit d'auteur qui protege sa these. Nila theseni desextrai ts subs tantlels de celle-cl ne
doivent etre impn mes ou
autrement reproduits sansson autorisation.
ISBN 0-3 15·86614·4
Canada
ABSTRACT
Thisthesis dealswith the attitudesof coreFrcn:~h teachersin Newf ound landand Labradortotheccacnor evaluation pr oc ess . It was partia lly initiated inrespo nse to an apparent problemthat many co r e Fre'1chteacher swere havi ng with the current teachereve Luet.ronprocess in the province.
The instrument at thecentreof th i s thes is is a questi onnairethat was distributedtoco r e Frenchteachers in thepr o v i nc e . 'Iilequestionnairecoveredeightmajor compone ntsofthe teacherevaluation proces s: purposes, cr i t e r i a , sources, pre-conference , post-conference, evaluators, characterist ic s of the evaluators , and organizational context. 'rhf e questionnairewas designed LISLI means to elicit not onlycur r e nt practices for these compo nentsfrom the perspectiveof core French teacher s, but also preferre dpractices.
The analysis of the resultsof the questionnaire includedthe frequency of respons esand the mean response for each item. Inaddition, the data for the entire po pula tion wascr os s - ta bu l a ted withthe following independentvariables: gender, years of teaching, type of
i i
school, and communi typopulation.
The findings revealeddifferencesbetweenpresent and preferredpr actices.Core Frenc hteac hers wante d, for example, mor e pr oc e s s cr iteria ,suchas presentation behavio ursandschool-re lated behaviours, to be used in judgingtheir tea c h i ng effectiveness.The findingsalso re vealedsomeanomalies in the evaluation pra ct i c esfo r core Frenchteac hersin theprov ince .One suc hano mal y was tha t eleme nta rysch oo l teache r s indica ted th a t the da i lypl a n book / l e s s on pla ns was a source vf dat a pr e s ent lyprac t ise d, inadditionto the sourc es ide ntified in common with the qener-eL popu la tion.
From a comparison ofthe s e findi ngs with the curre nt literature an te a ch e r evaluation,some differenc es , simil a r it ies, andpa tte rns weredrawn. For ins t an c e , the summati ve purpos es werenot as pr e do mi nan t in present prac tices as indica ted in the 11 terature and the respondents expresseda desire far mor e sou rce s of da ta , suc h asse l f- eva l uatio n, vh acnwas con s iste nt with the literature .
Basedan the fore goingcompa riso n, recommend ati ons and suggestionsfor improve me nt wer e ma de. One rec ommendati on involved theneed for in-service to furthe r educ a t ebet;', ca reFr en ch teache rsand evaluator s abo ut the me r its of peer eva l ua tion and parent inpu t assource s of data.
iii
ACKNOWLECCMENTS
The so lid adviceandposit i ve encouraq en eue[r om Profe ssorJoan Netten and thecomputerprogralllmi ngsk i ll sor Mic h e l le Sh a p t e r were greatlyap preciat ed .
Barbara Co ish deserves averysp ec i a l than k-yourcrthe time and effo r t that she put intothe typi ngof thisthesis.
A note of appreciationis dire c t ed to the Fren ch co- ordinators for ea ch scho ol board i,l the provi nc eof NewfoundlandandLab rado r. It was throug h the i r co-operatio n that a li stof coreFrenchteache rs in thispr ov i n c e was dev e lop e d .
Afinal tha nk- y ou is extend ed to the 102cor e Fr e nch teachers whoto ok thetimeto completeand retur-n the questionnaire.
iv
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
Abst ra ct ii
AcknovIe dqement.e iv
List of Tables ...•... .... ... ... ..•..•. .... Chapte rOn e ... .... .... . ....•..• •.. •.... . 1.1 Int rod uctio n .... ... .. . ... .••..•....• 1.2 Back g r ou n d toth e st udy •...• .•... .•... .. 1.) Gen e r al des i gnof thestud y ... . ..• ..•...
1.4 Si g nif icanc e of thestudy .•.• •..•...•.... . 1.5 Limitat i on s of the stud y ..
1.6 Detin iti onof terms ...• •. ..•... ..
Cha pt e~'Two .. . .. . ... .. .... ... . . ...•• ..•.•.• 10
2.1 Introduction.. . ... .. .... . . 10
2.2 Externa l and tnt erner force s af fec ting teac he r eva l ua ti o n 10 2.) Definitio ns of evaluati o n .•. .•... . .• 16
2.4 Pur poses of evaluation ... . ••••.. .. ... 17
2.5 Cri teria ...•....• ••.• . . •.•... . ... 21
2.6 Sou r ces of data... . ... ...• . • ••.. . .... 23
2. 7 Co ntempora r y ucce reand commo n trends ...•.••.•... . . . . .•.. .... .... 24
2.8 Conc lus i o n.• .••. ... ... ...•.. • • .••• 27
Chap ter Three....•.. • .•• ... ...•.. 29
3.1 Intr odu ction.. . ... . . ... . ... ... ... ... 29
3.2 'r tie sa mpl e ...• •... •... . .. 30
).3 Ge ne ral design of the instrument .•.... .... 32
3.4 Pre-t esting of the ins trument .... ••...• .. . 36
).5 Con c l us ion.. ... .... ... .. ... .... 39
Ch a p terFo u r •... ... .. . . . ..•....•.•.•. ... .. ...• 41
4.1 Introdu ction ... . .. .... ... . . . .... . .. ... 41
4.2 Purposesof teacher evalcation 45 4.2.1 presentpra ctices ... . ...•. ... 46
4.2.2 Summa r y of presen t prac tice s ..•. .• •. • •. 48 4.2.3 Pref erredpracti c es .•• •• .. .... •. .. ... 48 4.2.4 Summaryof preferredpractices 50
Page 4.3 Criteriato judq e eff e ctiv e teachin? 51
4. 3.1 Presentprac.tices " 51
4.3.2 Summary ofprese ntpractices 55
4.3 .3 Preferred practices 55
4.3.4 Summary of preferred practice s 59 .4.4 Sources used to obtain inf or ma tio n abouta
te a c he r' s cr rect.Iveneas.... •... .... .... . 60 4.4.1 Pz-eeerrt; practices .... ...•. ... ... ... 60 4.4.2 Summary of presentpractices .. .. . ...•.. 64 4.4 .3 preferred practices•...•.••. .... ....•.. 64
4.4.4 Summary of preferred practices 68
4.5 Charac teristicsandob j e c tive s of
th e pre-confere nce ..• . . .. ... ... 69 4.5.1 Present practices••.... •... ... .... 69 4.5.2 Summary of presentpr a c t ice s ..•••.•.. .. 72 4.5.J Preferred practices...•• .. ..••.. • . .. ••. 72 4. 5.4 Summary of preferredpractices 74 4.6 Characteristicsand objectives of
th e post-conference .. .• ....•.. ... . 74 4.6.1 Pr e s e ntpr a c t i c e s .•.•. •••.•.. •... ... 74 4.6.2 Summary of presentpractices... .... 78 4.6.J preferred practices.... . ... ..•... .. . . 79 4.6.4 Summaryof preferredpractices .•... 81 4.7 Evaluatorsinvolved inthc te a c he r
evaluationprocess...•.... •.... •.. 82 4.7.1 Present pr a cti c e s •... ... ..•. . . •.. . 82
4.7 .2 Summaryof presentpractices 84
4.7.3 PreferredprCl.{:cices... ... ... . .... .. 85 4.7 .4 Summaryof pre ferredpractices •. .. •. •.. 87 4.8 Characteristicsof theevaruaecetsj ••.•••. 88
4.8.1 Pr e sent practices .. 88
4. 8.2 Summaryof presentpractices 92
4.8.3 Prefe r redpractices.•...•.... . ... .... 93 4.8.4 Summary of preferredpractices •.• ... . .. 96 4.9 Organizationalcontext of teacher
evalua tio n..• ... .. ...••. .... . .... . 96 4.9. 1 Prese nt pr act i c e s ...• .•.. ..•. •... ... 97 4.9 .2 Summaryof prese nt pr ac t i c e s ..•... 99 4.9 .3 Preferred practices... • ... .... 99 4.9 .4 Summary of preferredpractices 101 4. 10 Conclusion .... •... . . ... ... .... 101
vi
Pa ge Chapt e r Fi VI... . ...• ... ... lOB 5.1 Intro d uc t i o n..•. ...•.. .•..•• . .• . . ... . lOB 5.2 Prese n t and prefe rred pr a c t i cesintea ch er
eva luation for ce r eFrenchteachers lOB
5. 3 Recommenda t i o ns and sug ge s t i o ns ... . ... 121
5.4 Rec ommend ati ons for fur t he r research .. . . .. 125
5.5 conc l u sio n... .. . . ... . . ... . 125
Bibliography ...• . • •.. ....•. ... .. ... . ..•...• .... 127
Appe nd i c e s ...•.•.• ... ...•... .•...••.•. • • •.. 132
Appe ndix 1 samplelet t er to French co-ord inator s ... ..• • ... . . 132
Appe nd ix 2 Writtenpermis sion from the Ava l onConsolidatedSchool Board... .. • 133
Appendix3 Pr o posedlette rof conse m, •• • • •• ••••• ••••••••• 134 Appe nd i x4 Proposedquestionnaire ... • 135
Appe ndi x5 Re vi s edletterof consent••• .•.• •.•••• •. ... 143
Appendix 6 Re v isedque stionn aire .• ... ... 144
Appe ndix 7 sa mp l ele t t er to supe rintende nt s .•...•..••.• 152
Appendix B Cros s-tabulati onsof present practicesfor purposes by independent va r i a ble s .. .•. . ••... . . ••. 153
Appendi x 9 Cros s-tabulationsof preferredpractices fo r purposes by inde p en de nt var iables ... ••.. •..•. ..•. 156
Appendix10 Cr oss-t a bu l a t i o n s of pres entpract ices for cr i t e ri a byinde p end e nt variab l es ...•• . •• • • •••. .... 159
Appendi x 11 Cross-tab ulations of preferredpracticesfor criteria byinde pend ent variables ... . ... ..•. 165
vii
Pdge Appendix12 Cross-tabul at ions of
present practices for sourcesby independent
variables
... ... .. . . .. . ..
17 1 Appendix 13 Cross-tabulation s ofprefer.red practic esfor sources by independent
variables
.. . . .. .... . .. ... ..
177 Appendix14 Cross-tabulations ofpresentpractic e sfor pre- conferencebyindependent variables
.. . .. .. ... ... .... .
183 Appendix15 Cross-tabulationsofpreferredpractices fo r pre- conference by independent variables
.. .... ... . ... . . .. .
,. 8 Appen dixI . Cross-tabulations ofpresent practices for post- conference by independent variables
.... .. .... . ... . .. .
,. 3 Appendix17 Cr o s s-t abu l a t i ons ofpreferred practicesfor post - conferenceby independent variab l e s
.... . ... . ... ....
198 Appendix18 Cross-tabulationsofpresent practicesfor evaluatorsby independent variables
... . . ...
'03 Appendi x"
Cross-tabulaticns ofpreferred prac.:ticesfor evaluatorsbyinde pe nd e nt var i ab l e s
... . ...
'0 8 Appendix'0 Cross-tabulationsofpresent practices for characteristicsofthe evaluator(s) by Lndapend ent;
variables
.. ... . .... .. .. .. ..
213 Appendix 21 Cross-tabulationsofpreferred practicesfor characteristic...of the evaluator(s) by independent variables
.... .... . .... . ... .
218viii
Page Append ix22 Cross-tabulationsof
present practices for organizational context by independ ent
variables •... ... 223 Appendix 23 Cross-tabulationsof
preferred practicesfor organizational context by independent
variables ...• ... ..•. 226
Ix
Ta ble 3.1
4.1
4.2
4.J
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4. 8
LISTOF TABLES
Reliability analysisfor
questionna ire .
Frequenc yof backg roundinforlll a tio n by ent i r epopuLa t. Lon .. ... .•. .. ... . Frequency of usefo r present
pra ct i c e s of purposesfor teac he r eval ua tio nby entire po pulat i on •...•..•.. ...• . . ... Fre que nc yof usefor pre f e r r ed
practice s of purposes for te acher evalua tio n byentire population...• •...•... . . ... Frequency of use fo r pre s en t
practic e sof criter i a for te a ch er eva l ua t io n by entire popUlati on...•.. • .. • •. • • .••... . .• Fr equ ency of use forpre t er r e d
pract i c e s of cri t e r i a for tea ch er evalu a tionbyentire popUl ati on ...• . •..•... .•... .. . •.. Fre q uen c yof use for present
practicesof so urc e s fo r teac her eval ua tio nby entire popu l a tio n..•••. . . ••.. ..•• ••••... .. Fr equenc yof use forprefe n'e d
prac tice sofsou rcesfor teacherevaluati onbyentir e population... ...••...• • . ..•. .••.• ... Freque nc y of usefor present
pract i cesof pre-conference for tea cher eva l ua t ion by enti re population ...•. .. . .. . . ... ..•• • ... .
Paqo
J.
42
46
48
52
56
61
65
70
Table 4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4. 1 5
4.16
rr -q ven c yof use for preferred practicesof pre-confe rencefor teacher evaluationby entire population...• .. .. .. . . ... ... .. . Frequency of use fo r present
practices of post -conference for teacherevaluationby entire population... • ... •... .. ... Frequencyof use for preferred
pract icesof post-conference for teacherevaluatio nby entire populatior•..•. .•....•.. .... . . .... ... frequencyof usefo r present
practices of evaluat orsfor teacherevaluation by entire population ....•. ... ... ... frequency of use for preferred
practicesof eva luatorsfor teac herevaluation by enti re population•...•... ... ... . ..
Freq ue ncy of use for present practicesof characteristics of theevalua tor(s)for teacher eval ua tionby entire populat ion Frequency of use for pref erred
practicesof characteristics -:Jf theevaluator(9) for teache r evaluation byenti r e population Freq ue ncy of usefo rpr e s e nt
pract ices of organ iz ationalcontex t forte a ch e r evaluation by ent ire
popu latio n .
xi
Page
73
75
80
B3
as
89
94
97
Tabl e 4.17
4.18
4.19
Freq ue nc y of use fOI pr e f err e d prac t i c e s oforganizationalcontext forteacher eval ua tionby entire
popu l a tion .
Summaryof pr ese nt pr acticesfor it e mswi t h meansof 4.00or abov e
byentirepopulati on .
Summary of preferr ed practic e s for itemswithme a ns of 4.00 or above by entirepcpu.latLon ...• ... ..
xii
Page
10 0
10 2
i'13
Chapter One 1.1 Introduction
Thistncs Ls deals~'iththe teacherevaIuati Lcn process from the perspective of core Frenchteachers in the province of Newfoundland andLabrador. The focus is notonl!on the process as it is currentlypractised in the provincebut also on suggestions for improvementIn thete a c h e r evaluation process in order to make it more effective for core Frenc hteachers.
1.2.l.t!!.ckground to the study
Research in the area ofte a ch e r evaluationas i t pertains to teachersof coreFrench appears tobe non- existent. For the most part, the literature deals with teacherevaluation from an aLje-encompaea Lnq point of view, without regard for a teacher'ssubject area, role, or grade le v el . However,there exists some research related to th e evaluation of specific teaching groups: Special Education (Craft-Tripp, 1990; Warger and Aldinger, 1987; Katims and Henderson, 1990); tenured teachers (Depasqua le, Jr., 1990);
department heads (Evaluation Bulletin, 1980); guidance counselors (Gorton and Ohlemacher, 1987); resource teachers (Haycock, 1991; McLelland, 19 8 8 ) ; and Englishte a c h e r s (Pannwitt, 1986;Wats o n , 197 8 ) .
•••2
In addition to the void inthe literatureon teacher evalua tion withrespect to teachersof French,there ge ne ra l lyappearstobe a prob lem for many core Frenc h te a cherswiththeprese nt zeechee-evalua tionprocessin Newf ou nd l a nd and Labrador.Although severa l fa c t or sare at the root of the prob le m, thefollowi ng se e m to standout more so than others: the variat ion in teach erevaluati on from one schoo lto anot herunder the same jurisd iction and even from onesc hoo l board to the next; aspect s of teach er evaluationtha t ha ve provensucce s s fulintheo ry butnot so mu c hinpr ac t ice; and present practices inte a cher eva luat i onwh icharema k i ng theproc es s inef f ecti ve . It sho u ldbenoted that,ac c ord ing tothe research, the s e fac t o rsare co maonplace inma ny te acher evaluationsystems acros sce-iede and the Uni t ed States. cons e que ntly , it is thisautho r'sassumptionthatth ey wou l dap pl yto core Fren ch teachers inNewf ou nd la nd andLabrado r aswelL
There existsple ntyof eviden ceof variation in the eva l ua t i on of cor e Frenchte a c h e rs.Th reeexampl e s inthis area are theconce pt of due proces s, thete chni q ues of da ta collection , and the fr e q u enc y ofcl ass roo m observations.
Occasionshaveari sen whereindividual cor e French teachers havenot beenfully infor me d of boththoevaluationproces s
...
;)and the observation criteriaand ha ve not beengranteda post-observa tionconference . 'I-hese, according toMa c y (1988), rep r e s e nt some of the righ tsthat are essentialand critical to due processtowhi ch each andevery te a c h e r is legallyentitled.Thisprac tice ma y explai nwhynosc hoo l board inNewfoundland and Labradorhaseverwo n aca s ew-h ere it hastr i e dto dismissa teache r forbeinginc ompe t ent, eve n though thereappea red to be strong groundsfor incompetenc y (Hickman, 19 9 2).
The te aching ef f e ctivenes s of some core Frenchte ach ers ha s beenjudq e d ondatacollected from onlyonesou rce , namelyclassr oom observation.fo r others,thissene jUdgment isba s e d on da ta collected fromother sou rcessuch as sel f - ev alua t ion and pee rassessment, in addition to classroom coser-ve t.Lon.unfortuna te ly, for those whobe ve found themse lves inthe formercat ego ry,data col lectedon lyfro m one source ten ds tobe ins uf f i c i ent in providing a complete pictureof the i r teaching ef fe ct i v e ne s s (DUke andStiggin s , 1986).
Classroomobserv a tion for so mecoreFrenchteachers could represent four or five visitsby eachev a luatorduri ng the periodof evaluation . Onthe other hand, some are observedonon lyoneoccasio n , or at the mosttwo. Too few
classroom observations represents a eer-ious pr-objem to the tee cner.Usually data which has ceeu based on one or two classroom visits is unreliableas an indicator of his/her routine instructional behaviour (Hickman, 1988),
with regard to the second factorthat is creating a problemfor many core French teachers in the area of teacher evaluation , there are numerous aspects of the eval uation process Which appearto be possiblein theory but are almost never accomplished in practice. The co-existe nceof summative and formative evaluation and teacher iuvc rveaene in the development of teacher evaluation systems are two aspects of teacher evaluationthat clearly representthe issue at hand.
Duke and stiggins (1986), Popham (19BB), and countless otherresearchersin the field identity two, equally important, purposesof teacher evaluation.The first, Which is identified as summative evaluation, serves the goal of teacher andschool board accountability, The second, formative evaluation, is to help teachersto grow effectively ina professional capacity. However, in almost all teacher evaluationprograms of school boards in Ne....foundlandandLabrador, these two very different and conflictingroles are completed simultaneouslyby the same
.. .5
person usingthe same tools which often results in counter- product ivity, co nf us i o n , and wasted time (Popham,1988). Po pha m(1988 ) cites the dual-functionof the principal to make hiscasein point. The principal is probably more inte r e s t e dinimpr o v i ng acor eFrenchteacher's ins tructio na l skills.However, his other duty to evaluate the tea chersummativelyprevents thela t t e r fromrevealing his /herown deficits.This same teacher'sevaluation is furtherdamaged becausethe principalma y be so concerned with formative evaluationthat (s ) h efa ils to reach an honest jUdgmentabo ut the co r e French teacher'sovera ll pe rforma nc e.
Herbert and McNergney (1989), Parkinson (1991), Bradley (199 0 ) , nf ecnIe (1990 ) , Burger and Bumba rger (1991), and Hickman(199 2), through thp..lr own individualresearch ,have advocated the importance of involving the teacher more in thedev e l o pment and implementationof teacher evaluation. Althoughthisis definitelya step in theri g ht direction, very fewcore Frenchte a c he r s in Newfoundland and Labrador, i fany , can presently reallycons i de r th e ms e l ve s as par tners in a process Where the y are the major role players. Inthis province, teacher evaluationpoliciesare, for the most part, unilaterallyproduced bythe school boards.
... 6
Rec ognit i o n of the ri g htsof thecore French tea ch erwith re s pe c t to both thepurposeandthe process of teacher eva luati o nis remarkedly rare .
As to the third factor ,the tr e a t ment of teacher evalua ti o n asan isol ate dta s k and thepoortra in ing of eval ua to rsrep resent two of themanycurre nt pra c ti ce s in tea ch e r evaluation whic h wouldseem tobevery5elf- defeati ng . Al t h o ug h theteacherevaluat ionpoliciesofmany school boardsin Newf o undlan d and Labrad o radheretothe prima r y purpos es of sumrnati veand format iveevalua tio n, there is a ge ne ralimp ressionamongsomecore Fr e nc h teacherstha t th esole purpos e of te a ch e r eva luationis one of ac c oun t a bility.Th US, in tr eating teac her eva l uat i on as an isola ted ta s k ,the y are likelyto developa decreasein theirsat i s f actio n andsk.i ll de velopment andanincrease in their lev el s of anxiet yandal i e na t ion (Davi s, 1989).
Re s e a rc hsu gge s t sthat eva l ua to rscan be ext r e me l y unt ra ined, unre l iabl e, and maybe biased inthe i r inte r pre ta tio n of tea ch e r s' action s (Ri tchie , 1990; Cres s ma n , 1987 ). Suchatt i tude s , wh i ch seem tobe echoedby manycor e Fren ch teach e rs in the provinc e of Newf oun dland and Labrador ,areverydestru c tiveto the teac her eval uat ion proce s s . Inth isprov i nce, there is not so muc ha reluctance
••• 7
on the part of evaluators to evaluate te a c he rs, but a tremendouscryontheir part for school boardsto give them the pr o per trainil\(,iso that they can earnthe re s pe c t of te ache rs(Hickman, 19 9 2).
Boththe void inthe lite ratureon teacher evaluation and especia lly thepr oble mstha t co r e French teachers ge nera llyappear to be having with thepresen t teach er eva l ua t io n pr oc e s s in Ne wfo undl and and Labr ador
ne ce ssitated , fr om thisres earcher ' spoint of view, a study of r'te teache r evalua tio nprocessas it pe r ta ins tocore French teache rs inthispr ovince.
1.3Generaldesignof thestudy
The instrumentat the centre of this stud y is a questionnaire tha t was distributed to f:.ul·time core French teache rsor th o s ete a Chi ng Fr e nch at le a s t eighty percentof thetime in the provinceof NeWfoundland andLabra do r.The qu e stio nnaire wa s designednot only to discover the current an d pre fe r r edpra c tice s inte ache r evaluation from the pers pective of thecore Fr e nc h tea ch er, but also to coepez-c prese nt pr a ct ice swith what shouldbe pr a c ti s e d.Allof th is datawas the n related to the review ottheliteratureon tea ch er eva luat io n inCana da and theUni t e dst a t e s from198 6 to 1992. Simila r i t ies,dif f e r e nces, and patterns be t ween th e
. . . 8
re su ltsfrom the quest i onn aire and wha t theres earch de pi c t s aside al pr actice s were sought.
1.4Sig nificanc e of the study
The results of the st udy were used to judq e the ef fect ivenessof cur r entpra c t i ce s intea c he revaluation from thepe rs pe c t iveof core Fre nc h teach e rs .ThisjUd gme nt ass is t e dingi vi n gdirect io ns for improveme nt , suchas in- ser vice, inor de r to make the tea c he r eva l ua t i o n pr oc e s s moreeffect ive forcor eFre nc h teach e r sinthispr ov ince .
1.5 X/i mi t a tio ns of the study
Thest Udywas limi ted to full-timecor eFr en c h teachers in theprovinc eof Newf oundla nd and Labra d o r.It could, however , ser veas aguide line for fu r the r stud yof the tea c hereval ua t i onpro c ess for core Fre nc hteachers acros s the country and forot he ri»iJbjec t te a c her s her e and elsewhe r e.
1.6 Defini tionof terms
Therearesome terms emp loyedinth i s the s i s whichnee d tobe cl a r ifi e d . CoreFre nc h is the stud y of the Fre nch language inel e me n t ary , int'ar media t e, and se con d a r y schools duringa regularly sche d u l ed timeperiod. InNewfoundl a nd and Labra dor , th e rec ommended entr ypo intfor thecore
•••9 FrenchProg r am is crede 4.TheProgramis orga ni z ed sequentially fr omCrade 4toGrade 12and us e s an app roved - setofmate rialsas the primary inst ructio na l res our ce.
Stud entsshou ld acquire a basicvocabulary, some knowl edge of gr ammatica lstruct u re,andskil lsin list e ning, sp eaking, re ad ing,and writ ing (Department of Educa tio n, 19 92) .
Acore frenchteac h e rfor th i s study is a teacher who te acherscoreFrenchful l~timeor at least SOpercentofthe time.
A schoolboardrefersmainly to board perso n nelsuchas the superintendent , the assistant supe rinte nde nt s,andthe co-o r d inat o rs. The y ar e viewe das themaj or de c i s ion-make rs.
The r e is one refere nce in the re vi ew of the literatureto sc hool boar dmembers.Theye-re notthe same astheboa rd personnel. Theyare ,to r the mos t part , elected by the publi c duri ngsch o olboa rd elec tio ns.The school boar d personne l is, in t'act, ac counta bleto the board rneabers.
Chapter TwO
.2.1~duction
Alt houg hthe li t e r a t u r e pertainingtote a c he r evaluationis simply over....helmin g,the purpose of this rev i e...., inaddi tion to pre sentinga synopsis ofrelated curr ent issuesand trends, is to establish guideli n esby ....hi chan appropr iateques tionnai reca n be developed andits resultseva luated . Thistask will be accomplishedby examin i ngthefollowi ngmaj orcompone ntsof teache r evaluatiot'l: th e effects of external and internal forces ; definitionsi' pur pos e s ; cr iteriai'sources of data; and contem porarymodels and commontrends. It is hoped that a rev iewof the relatedliterature from 1986 to 1992, both in Ca na da and the Uni tedstates,willcover the claims, concerns ,and issues for eachof these major components in a verythoroughand ref l ectiv eman ne r.
.2•.2 Externa l and inte r na l forces affectingteacher evaluation
Tea c he r eval ua t ionhasbe e n, and will continue to be, affecte dby forcesfrombothinside and outsideth e educational fr a me....or-k,The literature onteacherevaluation ha s identifiedsix extreme lystro ngforces. Publicopinion, schoo lboardcomposi tion, economic re s tra int s, legal constraints, co llectiveba r ga i ni ng, and gover nment legi slation are ind ividua llyand COllect ivelyhav i nga
•••11
profound ef f ect on teach er eva lua tion .
In 1982, theOntariopublic was surveyed t ....fi nd out its general attitudes towa r d education in that province. In responsetothe question , "Howsatis fi e d are you wi t hth e current situationin Ontarioelementaryand hi gh schools with regardto the school systemin general?",about36 percent of the respondents were generallysatisfied,while 64percentwere eitherdissatisfiedor uncertai n. Since the completionof this survey,general sa t i s f a c t i o n withthe schoolsystem has decreasedacrossal l social background distinctions, as have the differencesbetweenspecific groups (Livingstone, Hart and Davis. 19 88).
The power of pUblic opinionis producingchanqesin the demandfor accountability throughevaluation. societyis sh i f ting from anindus t ri al,labo r orientationto a more educated, informedone where such traitsas a global economy,decentralization, andnetworking are distinctive (Naisbitt,ci t e d in Burger,1987). Ingra m (cited in aurger, 1987)examinedsocietalpressuresfor change in theprovince of Alber taand observed thefollowing as pote ntia l socia l fo r c e sinthat province: th e increaseddiversity in school jurisdictions andschool progranuning; con cern s for justice, toleranceand excelle nce ; accountabilit y; and Invctveaerrt,
... 12
The composition of school boards is putting pressure on the board s, themselves , to bringaccountability to edu c at i on. Atpresent , many sc hoo l board members are profe s s i ona l andbus i nesspeo plewho haveha d theirown perso nalcontact with evalua tio nwhich is tied, in many ins t ances , tosalary and prom o t i on (Hickman, 1992).
Withlessand le s s pub licfunds dest ine dfor educatIon, edu cators haveto ge t usedto a shortageof fina nc ial reso urc eswiththe resul t i ng competit ionfor PUblic dollars (Wi c k s t r om, 1987). In New f ound l a nd and Labra dor , Where 16.1 perce ntof the totalbUdget for1989- 90wa s spe nton ed ucation , the curre nt economicoutlookdoesno t offermuch hope thatprovi nc i a l revenueswill inc r e a s esi gnif i c a ntly in the short term (TheRoya l Commissi onReport , 199 2) . Despite req uests bytheed uc at ion systemfor more resources andby the publi c for hi gh erpe r forma nc e , educa tionspendi ng is, howe ve r, not li kely to increase.Such demands andre st raint s ar e bound tomak e educa to rsreconsider howtheydeliver pro gramsandservic es in thisprc vinc e andtora i se que st i ons about theval ue receive d fortheeducationdolla rs spe n t.
Coup l edwith theseec on o mi c re a litie s is the changing relat i on shi p bet wee n th e courtsand te a ch er evaluation.
•••13
There is a trend inAmer icanstateand federal law, per t ain i ng tote a c her evaluation,toward inc r e a s e d fe d era l jurisdictionasco n s t i t u ti o n a l is s ue s and theappli c a t i o n of federalant id iscr i minationla ws te nd to expand (Rebe ll , 1990) . Anincre a s e in federal jurisdiction will resu l tin more courts lo o king ove r the sh o u lc.lersof school ev a l uators and will likelymake judicia lscrutinymorepro bin g (Re be ll, 1990).
Fa iled leg alpr oc e edi ngs tak en by scho ol boardsagain s t teacher s, who, in the opinion of th e fo r me r,were incom pe tent, are forcing the designing tlnd imp l e mentat i on of sy s t e ms fo r teacherevaluation by Americanand Ca na dian school di st rict s that wil l beab le to passthetest of due process (Spence,1987 ;Ha ey, 1988). Inth e pr ovince of Newfou n d la ndandLab ra dor, for examplQ. no school boardhas ever won a casewhereit hastr i e d to dismissa teacher for being incom pete nt,eventho ugh there appearedtobestrong gr o un ds forinc ompetency (Hickman, 1992). The reason that thesete a ch e r terminat ionsarealmost invariably ov ertur ned is re latedto thefailur e to prov id e adequa t e due proces s. In particular, the so u r ces ofdataand the datait selfwere no t ba s e d on prope r pr oceduresandfac t s (Hacy, 198 8 ).
•••14
The Canadianlega l sys t emviewsa teac he r ' s dismissa l as not onl ytheloss of a jo b but al s othe los s of themoans of earninga living for whichthe teac he r has trained extensively (Spence, 1987).The r e fore , inh erentin the system for teacherevaluationshouldbestepsto allowfo r due pr oc e s s. Hacy (1988, pp, 54-55) depicts sixco mpo ne nts thatar e es s ential and critica l to due process.These inclUde the right to:
1. be fu lly awareoftheevaluati on pr oce s s.
2. be fu l l y awareof the obser va tio ncri teria. 3. ha ve a post -observa tionconfe rence. 4. have fol luw -upobse rvationvisitations.
5. have follow-upreports.
In addi tionto these econo micand legal cons trai nts, the processofco llect ive bargaininghasalso h"ld an importanteffec t onevaluationpo lic ies . In ast udy of collective bargai ningeffectson evaluat i on in Newfound la nd schools,Williams (1987) discoveredthat therewas a real fea r tha t moreemphasiswould be placedon rati ng te a ch e rs to cove r legal anglesthan onactually illlpr ov inC) the ceacne ree pertormance.ThestUdy alsoreveale d a trendto cent r a l i z eeval ua tionso thatthe proc e du r es were fo ll owe d cons i stel" t l y inallschoo ls . This tr e nd to mor e cent ra liz atio nin te a c hereval ua t i on is evidentin the presentcollectiveagre e ment between the Governme n t of
...15
Newfo undl an d and Labrador,the Newfoundlandand Labrador Sc h ool Trustee's Assoc iat ion,and theNewfoundlandTeachers' As s oc iation. Article 14, albei tin a brief manner,deals with teacherevaluation from the perspectiveof purpose, def in it ion, and procedure (Pr o v i nc i a l Collective Agreement , 1991 to199 3).
The concept of teacher evaluationhas been affected by some provincialand statele g i s l a t u r e s as welL For example, in the United States,ac c or d i ng to theNationalEducation Associa ti onData-Search (19 88 ),so me state departments either order or pref erthat a sing l e model be used for teacherevaluation. In Canada, action taken by the governmentsof ontar i oand Al be r t a il l u s t r a t e the extent of legislati ve invo l ve me nt in these provincesin the evaluation proc ess . The Ministrypaper in 1967 on "Performance Appraisal asit Applies to Certificated Education Staffin OntarIc" placed a great deal of emphasis on evaluation acrossthat province. Since January, 1985,all school jur isd i c t i o ns in Albertahave to have in place teacher evaluat ionpolicies approved by the Minister of Education.
Loca l poli cies in that province sho u l d be in accordance with governmentpoli c yand yet reflectlocal needs for the teacherevaluat ionprocessin each school system
•• •16
(Townsend, 1987).
It seems apparent, in times of economic restraint and growing public concern for accountability, that teacher evaluation procedures are being forced to change to reflect the needs of society.
2. 3~sof evaluation
In the literature, both American and canadian, teacher evaluation has been defined in different ways. Dagley and Orso (1991) separate the concept of teacher evaluation into two camps: evaluation and supervision. Thesewr It.cr-sdefine evaluation as"t he administrative task of'[udqinq the effectiveness and quality of teaching, often to determine the future employment status of the teacher" (p. 73). In this definition, evaluation is viewed assunmat.Ive or
"jUdgemental".Supervision as definedby Dagley and Orso(1991) is "a developmental process that includes efforts designed to improve the instructional behaviour of the individual teacher" (p.73 ). In this definition, supervision is expressed as baing equal to the concept of formative evaluation.
Amore encompassing definition is espousedby Hickman (1992) :
•••17
Eva luat i on isthe systematicprcc e a s of judg ingth e worth, desira bility,effecti ve ne s s,orade quacy of somet h ingaccord in gtodefin ite cr i te r i a and purpose. The judgelllont is based upo n aca ref ul cOllparisonof obs e r va tion data 'tIit h criteri a st a nda r ds. (Class note s)
Thi s definitiondescribesevaluation as not just a policyor procedure, butst r e ssesthat it is atho r o ugh processwhich isbased on cl e ar and re a s ona b l e standards .
Ina comprehensivestudyof the development and use of evaluatio nof certificatededuca tio nst a ff inOntari o school boards, Lawtonat a1. (1986 )found thatmanyschoo l boards defineeva lua tionbyindicati ngthe differencebetwee n expr e s s ions suc hasformativeand summativeeva luation, adwli ni s t r a t ive and no n-a dminis tra tive, supe r v is i o n and evaluation, and clas sroomand comprehens ive.Certainlysuch diff e r e nces in defin ingevaluationre quire that aneffort be Illa deto stand a r d i ze thetermsused. St and a r d i za t ion is extremelyimportant becauseof thesensiti ve le g a l implic a tio ns of the process and of the frustratio:lcausedby the ambiguity in thesedefi nitions (Lawtonet a1., 1986 ).
2.4 Purposes of evaluation
Thereare manysources inthe lite ra t u re regardingthe prima ryandspecific purpose sof eva luatio n.American literat ure ide ntifi esnume r ou s object ives tha t ca nbe
... 18
reali zedthroughan evaluat i onthat isca rri ed out professionallyand withcompete nce:
1. The iden tifica tionof thestr engthsandwe a k ne s s es of a particula r teac her or groups of te a chers (Camp be ll , 1987).
2. The imple me ntat i onof profe s si ona l gr owth activitie s (Camp be ll , 1987 ).
3. " ...the sel e c t i o n ofth e bestqualified teache r s for newpositionsand the retention of the most needed in old" (Sta ke , 198 9, p. 131. 4. The es t abl i sh ment of opencommu n ica t i on betwe en
tea cher andevaluator (Camp be l l , 19 87 ) . 5. The administ ra t iondecisi ons 0' tenureor
di smissal (Camp be ll , 19 8 7 ) .
6. The aspe ct 0'tea c heraccountab il i t y(Du ke and St iq gins, 1986).
7. The impro ve mentof instruc ti on by promoti nq pro f essiona l deve lopmentof te ach ers (Dukeand St! q gins, 1986).
8. Th e overall imp r ov e me nt of the sch ool (Dukeand Stiggins, 19 86).
9. The re ward of merit (Sta ke,1989).
...19
Ac co rd ingto the literature ,the t ....o purposescommon to evaluati o npolic ies in Cana d ia nsc ho ol sys t e ms are formative and summa t i ve,The first of these is to helpteach ersgrow ef fe ct i vel y in a profe ss i on alcapacity. These c o nd serves thegoal of tea cherand school boardac co unta bi lit y . The latter of these ma y be usedto facilitateadminist rative decisionmaking in such matters as certification, te nu r e, promoti on, demotion, staff reduction, staff allocation, red uc t i on or inc r e aseof teach ingload, va lid a t i onof tea cherselectionproce s s, and dismissal (Mbeo, 1991).
Ho....ever, notwithstandingthe effortby policy-makers to cl a r i fy the pur p os es of tea ch erevaluationpoli c ies, mis unde rsta ndi ngis widelyspreadamo ng Canadiante achers andadministratorsas to the actual intentionsof the policie s. In re search carried out by Lawton et a1. (1986) , it wasdiscoveredthat , al t ho ug h an examinationof sc hool boardpoliciespointed to impr o vementof instru ctionas the primary purpose of tea cher eva l ua t i o n, 76 percent of ontario teachersappeartobelieve that the main purpose of the eva l u a t i o n processthey mostrecentlyencounteredwas si mp l y tosatisfyregulationswhichspecifiedthat each teacher should be evaluatedperiodically. Burger (1987) found that the mastco mmo n responseof teachers, principals and
•.•20
supe r i nt en de nt s in Alberta,vfs-a-vts the pur po s e or teacher evaluation, was to demonstrate accountabil ityto the public . Duke and stiggins (1986) perceived,as well, that American schoolboards have a tendency of placing greater emphasis on the surnmative component of teacher evaluation. These writers noted that this places limitations on any schoolboa r d ' s ability to meet the growth needs of individual tea chers and thus to enhance school improvement.
To provide a possible solution for the problem of mi s u nd e r s t a nd i ng s regarding the purpose of teacher evaluation, Wentzell (1991) argued that itisparamount that evaluatorsclearly define their purposes in planning the evaluation of professionals. If evaluation is intended to eliminate the incompetent, then that must bestated. I fit is not indicated, it will be assumed. I felimi na t i o n of incompetence is not the purpose, then it should be specified that the purpose is to enhance professional growth and remediation where necessary.
Furthermore, the establishmentof purposes is not an is ola t e d taskin the development of an evaluationsyst e m.
The goals and objectives of the school andsc ho o l system shoulddictate the purposes of teacher evaluation.An inc r e a s ein satisfactionand skill development and reducti on
... 21
of thelev e l s of anxiety and alienation occur whenteacher eva l u a t i onis perceived within the focusof attaining school goals (Da v i s, 1989). Finally, teacher evaluation means nothingunlessteachers can say at the end of the process that the focus was on student learn ing (Hickman, 1992).
2.5~
Considerable work has been done in determini ng pre c i s e l y the criteriawhich characterizean effective int e r ac t. i o n betweenteacherand student reSUlting in student.
gains (Ma na tt, 1987).The threetype s of criteriawhich have been associatedwithteacher effectiveness in varying degrees, accordingto Mitzel (1987), are:
~- Refers t.o t.hose teachercharacteristics present before the teacher enters thecla s sroo m. The y include tra itsand ba c kg r ound the teacher bringsto the job such asatt i t ud e toward the students, university achievement, and personal characteristics.
~- Those aspects of teacher and student behaviour thatare worthwhile in their ownright. These include such variables as methods of instructionand student-teacherinteraction.
~- These depend upon a set of objectives established by the teacher and evaluator designed to
••• 22
emphasizeleal"ningoutcomes.These outcomes would include, amongstothers , studentper fo rmanceandstudentat titu de.
In order to':l.evelopan effective te a c h er eva l uation prO<Jra m, howe ver, two impor tant elementsof evalua tion cr iteria must beconside r e d. First ly, no one set of cri ter ia tha t adequat ely su i ts all te <.lchi ngsit ua t ions can be est a bli s he d.Ac c ordingto Hunte r (1987 ) , so me t hi ng isne e de d beyond a supe r fic i al indic a t o r of teacherqualitywhi ch looks at informationof diverse typesrelatingtodiverse situa t i o ns derivi ng fr om di ve r se sources.Si nceef fecti ve teach i ng be haviou rsvaryfordi f f erent grades , lev e l s, subjec t areas, types of stude nts, and ins t r uc t io na lgoals, it is di fficu lt , if not impos sI ble,to adop t a singleset of broad cri t e ria. Eveni fa singleset of broad cri teriais adopt ed, accordi ng toTho rson, Mi ll e r and Bellon (1987), the ope ra t i o nal indic ators mustbe comedifferentiated for spe ci fi c appl ica t ions. Secondly , everyo ne involve d must possess aba si c knowll~dgeof the fa ctors that chara cteriz e effecti v eteac hingandan expertLse iniden tify i ng them.
This'knowledgemus t be sha r ed by bot h the eval uators andthe teachers. Both partiesmust believe in the validity of the s e ch a r acte ris t i c s as indic a t o r s ofef f e c ti ve teaching (Babiuk , 19 88 )•
••• 23
2.6Sou r c e s of pata
The literature refers to many sources from which data may be used during the evaluationproces s to promote the profes sional growth of teachers.Among the most frequently citedare cl ass r o om observation,peer as sessment, sel f - asses sments,cl a ssr oo m re cords, pupilsurveys , and parent responses.
De s p ite the number of identified sources , two areas of co nc ern need to be addressed in the successfuldevelopment and imp l e me nt a t i o n of any teacher evaluation policy.
Fi r s t l y, llany one source aloneis insufficientbecauseit fails to provide a complete picture of how the teacher: (a) prepares for, (b l presents and (c) evaluatesthe impact of instruction" (Duke and stiggins, 1986,p, 28). secondly , thereare spec if 1c concerns re l a t i ngto each of the previouslyidentified sources of data. For example,Duk e and Sti gg i ns (19 8 6 1state that "classroom observationsof only one or two hours ofpe r f orma nc e may satisfy statela ws and co nt r ac t u a l obligationsbut they do not supplythe information needed to promote improvement in competent tea ch ers" (p. 29).Freiberg (198 7), has suggested that classroomvi sitations, ifcond ur:te d properly, shouldoffer greater potential whenused ina formativesy s t e m of
•••24
feedbackeapecially ifteachers are giventhe nece ssa ry supp o r t throug h staff developmentprog r a ms . Rega r di ngpe e r ass e s sme n t s,Frei berg (1987 ) conte nds that althoug hfee d back ca n be very hel p ful, it israrelyused inlIlost schoo ls.The writerst a t e s that"ma ny teachers fear the i r feedbackto coll e a gue s will be use dinsalary and promot i onalde c i s i on s "
(p. 86).
2.7 contemporarymodelsandcommon trends
Areviewof the litera turesi nc e 1986 on cc e cn e x evaluationreveals anove r Whe lmi ng number of t.eecne x eve .ue t.I o nlIIod e l s. Inaddition tothose models that ar e developed , the lite r aturealsomake s lIlentionof othersin thedev elopmental stage.Thethe ory / lllodel 1II0st of t en eme r g i ng . espec i a lly intheAmerican lit e r a tu r e. cen t res arou nd cli nic al supe rvision . wareing (1990) states tha t since the pUblicationof cl i nicalsupervisi onmode lsby Goldha mmer(1969) and Cogan(19 73 ) , thereha s beenvirt ually universa l acceptance of themthr ough outthe Unite dst ates.
other mod e l ssuchasth e IntegratedSuperv i sion Mod e l (Da gleyandOrso, 1991 ), the SideMode l (Wa r e ing , 1990) , and the Evalu a tio nModel (Depa squal , Jr., 1990) seem to have a stand a r d izedsyste mati c sequenceof st e psrefle c t ive of the cl ini c al superv i s ionapproach. These step s incl ude the
•••25
planni ngconfe re nce, observa tion, anal ysisofdata , strategy , and post-tea ch ing confe re nc e.
Models app e a ri ng inCana d i a n litera t ure ar e the Etobicoke Madel (pa rkinson , 1991 ), the Med i ci ne Hat Sc hoo l Distric t Ma d el (To....ns en d, 1987), the Halifa x District Schoo l BoardModel (Gorma n, 1990 ) , andthe suppo r t and supervis ion Model of the pi c t ou Di s t r i c t Schoo l Board in No v a Scotia (MaCDOnald , 1986). WithinNewf ound l a nd, themode l fo un d in theliter at ure is th e critica l Components Model devel o p ed by Hickma n(198 8). There appears tobe conside ra b le variation in thesemod el s wi t hrega r dtothe approa ch emp loyed, fro m clinicalsupervisionto ope n-e ndedorcol l ab orat i ve .
Everton (1989), responding tothe models inAmer ican schoo l boards , conte ndstha t the proce ssis often destroyed byth e incl usi o n of poorsupervisory training, the useof inapprop ria te ra ting scal e check list s , the lackof time and mone y ,andother factorsthateffect theevaluator' s informa tionfor ma k ing jUdgemen t s.
Hunt er (1987), in addr e s singis su e srelatedtoa model deve lope dby tha t writer , st ated thatman ysup e rvisor s and admi nis tra tors ha vefa iled to re cogn izethat whatappe arsto be a single conc e pt ualiza tion isrea lly comp l ex in app lication and that ma ny leadersar einad eq uately tra ined.
•••26
Herbert andMcNe r gney (1989) poi ntout tha t re sear ch indi c ate s teache rspre f era collaborat i ve approach rathor than a superviso r - c e ntre d one .The tr e ndfor the 1990 ' 5, it seems , is involvi ng the teacher morein howeval ua tion/
supervisionisbple me nte d.
In Canada, thiscollaborativeapproa c hhas al sobee n echoe d. WithinOntario, re search has consistent lyadvocate d tha t teac her s , aspr o f e s s ional s, sho ul d take primar y respo ns ibilityforth eir ownprofes si onaldevelopme nt.
Furt he rmore , pr of ess i o nal developmentacti vities ne e d tobe cu s t omiz edto the ind ividua l teach e r (Parkinson, 199 1 ). In Ma ni t o ba, Bradle y(1990 ) has advoc ate d suc h Lnvofveeent;by teachersinevaluationdesignas discussed by Par ki nso n . Bradley (199 0) al s omainta i ns that, unfor t un a t e l y, tea c her s and theirlocal assoc ia t ionsdo no t alwa ys parti cipate in thedevelopment of eval uat ion policieswh i ch are un ilate r ally produced by sch oolboards . Brit i sh COl Ullbla, Rit chie (1990)asserts , isbecominga le ader in the use of thepro fes s i onal ac c o unt abilit ymodel whi ch inc r e a ses the aut ho ri tyof teachersover tea c hers . Burg erand Bumba rger (19 91) foundinthe ir st ud y of 30ra ndomly selected Alber ta school sys te ms thl....improvementof instruc tio n was id e nt if ied as a major policygoa l inall the models and
••• 27
policydocuments. However,no t a bly rare was recognition of the rights of the teacher .... ith respect to both purpose and processof evalua ti on.
2.a ~
It seems apparent that the evaluation of teachers is st il l undergoingconsiderable developmentin many s tet.es and provincesof NorthAmerica. Schoolboards and districts are attempting to respond tothe increasing demands of society, yet respect the rights of their teachers.It is th e r efo r e notsurprising that relationsappearto be snre Lned,
Despitethi s turmoil, the literature clearlyidentifies major cha r a c t e ri s t i c s , strengths,and shortcomings of the teacher evaluation process. This triadwill form the basis of the questionnairedesigned to elicit the view-pointsof core French teachers on teacherevaluation in Newfoundland and Labrador .
In addi t ion, there v i ew of the literaturehas indicated that there are certain agreed-uponcharacteristics and trends whichare necessary in order for effective evaluation totake place.Thesefa c t or s include a teacher's right to dueprocess, the carefulcompari s onof observationdata with criter iastandardswhen judging a teacher's effect ...ve ne s s , the focus of teacher evaluation on school goals and student
••• 28
learning, the adjustment of criteriato suit a particular teachingsituation ,theuse of mUltiple sources of data,the systematic sequeneeof steps inth e ev a l ua t i on process, the ap p r op r i ate training of evaluators, and th e increased involvementof teachers in the development and impleme n tationof evaluation policies.
Thisstudy of the teacher evaluation process as it pertains to coreFrench teachersin Newfoundlandand La br a d o r will not only determinethe characteristicsand trendsof presentevaluation practices inth i s province, but alsoth e extent to which they conform to the major guidelinesfor effective teacher evaluation.
Chapter Three
3.1 Introduction
The goals of thisstudyon the attitudesof core French teachers in Newfou ndla nd and Labrador to the teacher evaluatio nprocessincluded ident ifying pr e s e nt evaluation practices, draw~'''gconclusionsontheeffective nessof the process, and making suggestionsfor improvement. To effectively accomplish thesegoa l s, the views of coreFre nch teachersna tu r al l yhad tobe elicited.
In ma k i ng thede c i s i on as to wha t means woul d be the mosteffective in conduct i ngth is elic i tation, two pr incipa l factorswere considered.Firstly, coreFre nc h tea ch e rs in this provincewerewi d elydi stri bu t e d geographical ly.
Se c o nd l y, it wa s felttha t there wasa needto af fordthem theti menec e s s a r y to reflect or.the manycomponentsofth e teacherevaluat ionprocess.
Due primarilyto these twofactors, it was dec i ded to conductthiselicitationth r oug h a questionnaire th a t would be distributed to coreFre nch teachers for completion . However, before any distributionof this instrume nt ,certain decisions hadto be made andcertai nprocedures had tobe fol l o we d . These involvedthe sampl eof the populat ionan d the desi gn and pre- tes ti ngofth e ques t i onnaire .
3.2~
Theta r ge t groupfor this st u dy was core Fre nc h teache rs in the pr ovinc e of Newfou ndla nd and Labrador.Since mostteachersof Fr enchinthe provincealso have respon s i b i l i t y forother curriculumaree s,aFr en ch teacher wa s arbit r arily de f ine d as one who taug ht French at leas t ei ghty perce ntof the time.Onewou l das sumethat a list of the setea chersmight exist. However , th is wa s not the case. Inst ead , anoffi cia latthe Depar tmen t ofEdu c a tion, Frenc h Programs Di v i s i on , didprovide a li st of Fr en ch co- ordinators, one for eachschoolboard in the province. Fr o m this star tingpoint,a letter ,completewi tha corresponding address, reque stinga lis t of the tar get grou p in each schoolboa rd, wa s personal l y mai l e d toea ch Frenchco- or dina to r (Append ix 1). (S ) h e wa s provi d ed witha self - addre ssed stampedenve lo pe fortheretur nof the appropr iate li st . In retur n for hi s / her assista nce, eachco-ordinator was off eredthe oppor tun i ty to receive a copy of the compiled lis tupon reques t.
Withina shortperiod of time, eachFrenchco-ordina tor provided his/her list of co r eFr e nchteache r s who fittedthe def i n i ti o n.However, it should be noted that the maj orityof th e co-o r dina t o rsunderline dthe factthat there we re many
•••31
othe r te a ch e r s of coreFrenchin th e irschooldistri ct whose nameswere not included be c a us e th e y were tea ch i ngcore French les sthaneigh t yper c e nt of the t ime . Further research could involvethi s lattergroup. In ad dition, one of theco-ordinator s stated thatpermiss i onhad to be granted fromher school board befo r eanyquest i onna i r ecou ld bedistri b ut ed to any ofitstea chingfo r ce . Inth is partic ula r case , permission wa srequested and receive d (Appe nd i x 2).
From the informationprovided byth e Frenc hco- ordinators, a list of 243 core Fre n c h teache rswas develope d.The list inc lude d their names and thei r comp l ete schooladd ress. Fr omthis targe t group, thirty tea cher swe r e selected for tha pre-tes t ingpr oce s s in the following
fivewere askedtocompletethe questionnaire and to ma kesu gge s t io ns for improvemen t;and twenty- fi ve te a ch e r s , ran domly selec ted fr omsix diff e re nt sc ho o l boar ds in easter n Newfo und land, were maileda copyof the questio nna i re inor de r tojud ge the quest ionna i re' s de gree ofre li ability . There mai ni ng213 membersof thetarget grou pwerese nt acopy of therev feedquestionna irefor comp le tion, pe rso na llyadd r ess e d toeac h of them.
... 32
3.3General design of t.he instrument
The questio nnaire, beforepr e-t es t i n g , ....as aneight- page documentconsistingof two distinct parts (Appendix4)•
~surveyedsome backgroundinformati.ononeach teacher.Thein f o r ma t i o nreque s t e d - age, sex, years teaching, ty pe of school,andcommunitypopulation- served asinde pend e nt variables by whichthe datain~of the quest i o nna ire could be brokendown forfurth e r analys is. These particular variables werecho s e n in order to verify if cer t a inobserved tr ends and characteristics in the teacher evaluation processvari edaccording tothete a c h e r's ageand sex, the number of years(s ) h e hee be ente ach ing,or the typeofscho ol in which (s ) heisteaching,whe t h e r i t be highschool versuselementaryor rural ve r s us urban. £itl:1 1:H2.ofthe ques t i on na iresurv e yed both currentand preferred practices inthe teacher evaluation proces s.A sectionfor commentswas providedfor respondents at theend of the questionnai re.
~represented the questionnaire'score.This part was subdividedintoeight majorcomponents of the tea c h e r evaluationprocess - purposes , cri t er i a, sourcesof data, pre -conference, post-conference, evaluators, evaluator's characteristics, and organizationalcontext.
•••33
Thes e compo nents ellana t ed fromthereviewof the literature on tea cherev a l u a tion in bothCana d a andthe Unite d States frolll19 S 6to19 92. Theyve r e caref u lly selecte d tobe repre s e n t a t ive of th e majo r issu es and conc e r n s that were addr essed inthe rev re v .Inaddi tion , eachof the compon ents was accompaniedby a se ri e s of items vhichservedtobea loqicalexpansionof eachcompo n ent.In ComponentA, Purposes of te a ch ereyaluation , itemsoneand three ed dr e s.s e d the summa tive nature of teacher eva l u a t i o n , while it ems twoand four addressedthe for mat ive asp ect. In Compon entB, Criteriatojudge effe c tive bac hi n q , ite ms one, four,six, and ci q htserved as examp les of presaqe cr iteri a , whi l e item s tva, fi ve, seven , nin e, and ten were examp l e s of th e diffe r ent types of processcrit e ri a . Ite m thre e was anexalllple of th e prod uc t typ e. Th e twel ve sour c e s inSou rces of data fo r doc ume nta tio n,Compone ntC, re pr e sented al l of theposs i b l esou rces suqqe s t ed in the literatureon teach er eva l u a t i o n. Items one an d twoin Compo n e n t p, Chancte ris ticsandobject i v es of the pre- con f e r enc e for classro omob s e rv a t i o n an din Component E, Characteristicsandobjectives of thepost~conferencefor clas s r o Qm observationwerethe ideal characteristicsof both th e pre-and pcse-c cnrerencesuqqested in the li t e r a t u r e on
•••J4
eva luat ion, whil e the re ma i nder of theit e ms were possibl e pre-a ndpos t-co n fere ncegoals.Theeight evaluator s in Compo ne ntF,The eval u ator s involved in theteacher evaluat ion proc es s ,were refle ctive of the pos s i bl e eval ua tors,whoacco r d ing to theliterat ur e , ha ve evalua t-ed teachersat varioustimes. Thecha rac te r istics in~ g,Charac t.eri s t icsofthe evalua t o r ' s} , exce pt for item 3, were sugge s t edas idea l characte r i st icsofaneffecti ve eva luator. Inthe fina l compo ne nt , Compon ent H,~ or ganizatio na l co ntex t gf t.eac her eval u atign, eachofthe fou r itemswaside nt i fi e das a specHic role thatschoo l boards ha v e playedin thete ach er eva luation proce s s.
Toco mpletetheque s'tLonne Lre, ea ch cor e Fr en ch teacher was asked to rat eeachit e minitsrespective componen t on the fiv e-po i ntrating scale . Each ite mwasratedtwi c e - onc e forthe way it was a re flectio n of prese n t pr actic e in the te ac he r's school di stri ctand thenas areflec t i on of how(s)hewou ld prefer tose e it pract ised in hi s /herown schoo l di str i c t. Onthera ti ng sca le,fiverepr esented a pr a ct icewhi c hwa s always foll owe d; tou r ,aprac t i c e somet imes followed; three, rarely follo wed; and two, nev er fol l owed. The number onewa s usedtode signatethe categor y 'do n ' t know'.Therati ng for eac h itemas topr e s entand
•••35
preferredpractices....as ide nt i c a l.
To ensurethat eachtarge t .embe rreasonab lyunde rstood the que s tionnaire andto o k the tille tocomplete it, spec::'lic measures....ere carried ou t.The envel o pe contain i nq a copy ot th e que s tionnai r ewa sno t just simplyaddre ss e d to th e core Frenchteacher(sl ota partic ular schoo l. butwaspersonal ly address e dto eachteacher . Al o ng withthe quest i o nna ire, II sep ara t e lette r was enc l osed.Thi s ac companying letter (Ap pend ix3) inclu dedIIdes criptionof th e purpose of the study, a guarantee of ano nymit y,and II request fo r mfo r eac h teacher i f(5)he was interested inrecei v i nga copy of the results. In addition,ea c htea c her, includinC)the 30 teachers invo lvedinthe pre-testingoftheque stionn air e.
was provided with a self-addressedstamped envelopeforthe questionnaire' sret u rn. As wel l,C)rea tcarevasta ke n in the actuallayout ofthe questionnaire. The number of pageswas k.ept to eiC)ht , usingbothsides of four sheetsof paper.
Th i s was achieved bythe sideby side placement of the ratinC)s for present andpref erre dprac tic e s.~of th e questionnai re WaS proceededby appr o p ria tedirec tions with impo rtan t wor d s unde r line d.Explicati vesweread ded tomany ite ms for rat ing to enha n c e under standing. In ad dition, the rat ingsc a l ewa srepeated atthe top of each su c cess i vepa g e
•••36
of~inor d e r to preve ntanyunnecessarydelayin the completir.mof the que s t i on na ire.
3.4pre- t esti ngof the instrument
Befo reth e pr o p os ed ques tionnaire(Appendix 4) was distributedtothe 25 members of the targe t group in orde r tocarry out areli a bili t ycheck, itwasde c id e d to pre-tes t thequest ionnaire fo rits design.
The comments fromthe five core Fre nc h teachers, who wereaskednoton l y to complet e the ques t ion nai re , butto comment,as wel l , on the ques t ionna i re 's de s i gn , pr odu c e d someminorchanges tothe orig i nal question nai re (Appendix 6).It wa s suggestedthat ther emaybe several membe r s of thetarget group Who , possiblybeca us e they ha ve not been evaluat ed in a lon g time, mi gh t fregue ntl y end up selecting the '1- don' t know'orno t co mpleti ngthe ques t ionnaireat al l.To encourage thi s partic u lar gr ou pto thinkabout the items pos ed or toco mpl ete the que s t i o nna i r e, th e following itemswe readde dtofH.t....Qn.!l: Back g round inf orm a t i on : the lastoc c urre nc e of bei ng for ma lly eva l uated; and the ee e cn tnq sta tus whenlast evaluated. Furth ermor e, there was concer nof hav ing ha dto re f er back to the pr ec ed i ng pa ge for items ofcompone nts tha t ca r ried over tothe nexe page.
Sp ecifically, whe n this occurredsuch as ....ithCompone n t F,
•••37
·rh e eval ua tor (s1 involved in the tea c her ev a l ua t i Oh
~,one wa sforcedtobac k tra c k to identify the approp ria t e headi ng towhic hthe itemsbelonged. To eliminatesuch necessity, the he ad ing cr any comp o n e nt , tha t ha d items forrating carr iedoverto thefollowing page, would it s elf be car riedover, in a limited versi o n, to the ne xtpage, accompan iedwit htheword 'contin ued'. The r e appeare d, aswell, some di t ticu l t y inunders tandi ngsomeof th eitemsin certai ncompone nts and some ofthecompo ne n t he adi ng s .As a result, theheadingsfor ComponentsC, 12,,E, andg, wer-e re worded.Item six of Compo nen t P, it e mthreeof ComponentE, and itemsoneandsix of Compo nen tG wer-e extended to providefurt he r exp lanat ion.Al l the ite ms of Compone nt Gwee e sl ightl yrewr i t te n toincl u de th e SUbjec t pr onoun, ' they '.Aswell, to establishinadvance what would be conside redas a re as on a bl e amountof time tha t an evaluator shou ld spend ina teacher'sclass room (i tem nine, Component G), an add i tio n a l itemwas added to~of the questionnaire. Fin all y , item fiveofcompo nent c, Sources to obtaininforma t i on aboutate ach er's effectiveness, was di vi d ed into two sep a ra t e items \<lith ad d iti o nalword in g added , thus creati ngatotalof thi r teen sources toobtain informat i on, insteadof theor i g i na l
•..38
twelve.
In addition tothe changes in the questionnaire 's design, directives from the Ethics Review Committee for the Facultyof Educa tion fo r c e d changes in the letter of ccn-ient whichaccompaniedthe questionna ire. Statements tha t the th e s i spro pos a l had bee n ap p rovedby theSupervisor, that thestudy met theet hicalguidelinesof the Faculty , and tha t r'eapcndentia were freeto refrain from answering any questionsthey wish to omit were all added (Appendix5).
Subsequently,the revised letterof consent and question nairewere mailedtotwenty-fivecare Fre nch teachers to pre-testthe questionnairefor its reliability.
Using there s pon s e s of the fifteenteachersWh o ret u r ned the comp letedquestionna ire, a re lia b i li t y anal ys iswas cond uc t ed usingthepresent scale,the prefe rredscale, and the full sc a l e, The re su lts , shown inTa bl e 3.1, revealed an extreme lyhigh re liab i lit y ratingin each case.
TABLE 3 1 Re li ab i li t y Analysisfor Questionnaire
~ 1. Presen t 2. Preferred 3. Full
~ .9 2 7 6 .92 73 .9525
•••39
In ad diti o n, any statements inthecomme nt section atthe end of the questionnairewere studied.Thecommen t s tha t wer ementi one d were just personalreflect ions onth e tea cher eva l uatio nprocess , wn Lcnwere bas i c a l l y coveredin the que stionnai r e, rather thananycon c e r ns withthe questionnai r e 's design. Wi t h this is mind,combi ned wi th th e excel lent reliabilit y rating, itwasdecidedthat further cha nges tothequest ionnairewere unneces s ary. Consequently , it wasmai ledto theremaining213 membe rsof the target gro u p for completion. Asa matterofcommonco u r t esy and as a means toperm i teach core Frenchtea ch e r toco mpl e t e the que s tio nnai r e withre d uced interference, a sampleof the le tterof cons e n t andques t i onn d r e was als oma iled to all superinte nde nts. As well,the yreceivedan accompa ny i ng let te r whi ch st r e ssed that if they had any concerns que st ions, the ywer easkedtoei t her con t a ct the It.•.:!s t i gato r or theSupervisor(Appendi x 7) .
J.5~
A grea t dealof time and effortwerespent in orga n iz i ng thesample and in de signi ngand pr e-testing the quest ionna i re . These ste ps were neces saryinorder toens ur e that anydiscoveryot currentandpreterredpracticesin tea cherevaluationfromthe perspe c t i ve ofcor e French
••.40
te a che r s and any ccspar tccnof present practiceswith what shou ldbe practisedwere indeedva l id. In addit ion, they were equally essential in order to providean effective opportunitytoid e nt ify similarities,differences, and pat t e r ns between the resul ts from the quest ionnaireand what the researchdepicted as ideal practices.
Fo rth e data received fr o mre s po nde nt s, the following analys iswasconduc t e d: frequencies of responses ; average re s p o ns e ; observedversus expectedresponses ;and differencesin responsesby independent variabl e s. The re ~m l t sotthe s e ana lyseswill be presented in Chapter Four.
Chapter fo yr
".1Int roduction
Out ofthe 213 questionnai resthat we r emaile dto core French teachers, 10 2 were comple tedand ret ur ned.This prod uce d a retu r nra t e of almost forty-eigh t percent, which , for anopened-e nded questionn ai re of this type , wa s quite respect a b le.
As to some ba ck g r o undinfOr ma tion onthe re s p on de nt s , the ques t ionnaire aske d them to identif ytheir gende r,age, yearst.each Lnq, and the type of school andthepopUl a tion of the communitywher ethey worked. Inaddi t i on, the ywere askedto ind ic ate whe n and under wha t sta t us the y were last eva lua t e d. Fina ll y , they wer-easked to identify wh at they cons i d e red tobea re a s onabl e amount of timethat an evaluato r shou ldspendobservingthei r teaching .
Fr o m the data inTabl e 4.1, it ma ybeseenthatthere wa s anequ al numbe r of male and femaleresponde nts. Hare than1./ 3 ofthe lllwer eover 40 yea rsold. Almost the-sa nte
nUII~ rwere youngerthan 3D, whil e29 perc entwere betwe en the ag e s of 21 and 40.
The large st group , l'llOr e than 40perce nt, had fe wer th a n 10yea rsof tea ching expe ri e nce.The ot he rs werealmost even lydivided be t we en 11 to20year s teach ingand gre ater than20.
More respon den t s taught ina high, cent ra lhi gh, or
